has the USS Nimitz Battle Group arrived in or near the Persian Gulf yet ?

On May 3, 7:54 pm, shrubkiller wrote:
On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid wrote:

The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California
around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or to
reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already there
yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah?

Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower
group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to mention
at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer,
USS Bataan and their escorts.

If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could
easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough
for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran.

Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the
entire navy.

LOL!!!

Other than for the occasional photo shot they'll stay far enough a
part it'll take a crust cracker.

"John Keeney" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 3, 7:54 pm, shrubkiller wrote:
On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid wrote:

The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California
around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or to
reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already there
yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah?

Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower
group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to mention
at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer,
USS Bataan and their escorts.

If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could
easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough
for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran.

Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the
entire navy.

LOL!!!

Other than for the occasional photo shot they'll stay far enough a
part it'll take a crust cracker.

Even a closed-up formation (say, for a cruise photo) occupies a lot of
space...they wouldn't even be as closed up then as the ships seem to have
been for Shot BAKER in the famous photo:
http://www.de220.com/Strange%20Stuff...ads/Baker8.jpg

In reality, with either a CSG or ESG, you'll have ships very far apart. Any
one nuclear weapon may be bad news for one or two ships, a few more won't
like it, and the rest will be relatively unscathed. Unless, as you say, the
enemy uses some rather stupendous weapons.

The real problem is not that one or two nuclear weapons (let's say they are
medium-size fission weapons) is going to wreck the entire fleet, but that
your high-value assets may be mission-killed. A 50 kT airburst 3-4 km from
your CVN is not going to be conducive to continued flights ops in the near
or medium future.

AHS

On May 5, 1:53 pm, "Arved Sandstrom" wrote:

In reality, with either a CSG or ESG, you'll have ships very far apart. Any
one nuclear weapon may be bad news for one or two ships, a few more won't
like it, and the rest will be relatively unscathed. Unless, as you say, the
enemy uses some rather stupendous weapons.

The real problem is not that one or two nuclear weapons (let's say they are
medium-size fission weapons) is going to wreck the entire fleet, but that
your high-value assets may be mission-killed. A 50 kT airburst 3-4 km from
your CVN is not going to be conducive to continued flights ops in the near
or medium future.

During Cold War preparations, it was assumed that nukes would be used
against CVBGs in the North Sea. The blast radius of a nuke with the
accuracy necessary to hit a ship was deemed small enough that only the
target ship would be mission killed.

The other ships in the group would be far enough away from each other
to be somewhat unscathed by the blast, and free to maneuver to avoid
the fallout and/or conduct washdown procedures.

The washdown system on the Nimitz class is even designed to wash
fallout off aircraft that are parked on the deck.

On May 8, 3:52 pm, Airyx wrote:
On May 5, 1:53 pm, "Arved Sandstrom" wrote:

In reality, with either a CSG or ESG, you'll have ships very far apart. Any
one nuclear weapon may be bad news for one or two ships, a few more won't
like it, and the rest will be relatively unscathed. Unless, as you say, the
enemy uses some rather stupendous weapons.

The real problem is not that one or two nuclear weapons (let's say they are
medium-size fission weapons) is going to wreck the entire fleet, but that
your high-value assets may be mission-killed. A 50 kT airburst 3-4 km from
your CVN is not going to be conducive to continued flights ops in the near
or medium future.

During Cold War preparations, it was assumed that nukes would be used
against CVBGs in the North Sea. The blast radius of a nuke with the
accuracy necessary to hit a ship was deemed small enough that only the
target ship would be mission killed.

The other ships in the group would be far enough away from each other
to be somewhat unscathed by the blast, and free to maneuver to avoid
the fallout and/or conduct washdown procedures.

The washdown system on the Nimitz class is even designed to wash
fallout off aircraft that are parked on the deck.



Right into the ocean!

Sweet!

On May 11, 9:57 am, shrubkiller wrote:

The washdown system on the Nimitz class is even designed to wash
fallout off aircraft that are parked on the deck.

Right into the ocean!

Sweet!

So right! How could they dare to dump that waste into the ocean...
where 99% of the fallout from the blast landed already...

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb,
it's just fate whether you live in Tibet or Kansas...

On May 5, 12:53 pm, "Arved Sandstrom"
wrote:
"John Keeney" wrote in message

oups.com...





On May 3, 7:54 pm, shrubkiller wrote:
On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid wrote:

The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California
around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or to
reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already there
yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah?

Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower
group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to mention
at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer,
USS Bataan and their escorts.

If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could
easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough
for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran.

Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the
entire navy.

LOL!!!

Other than for the occasional photo shot they'll stay far enough a
part it'll take a crust cracker.

Even a closed-up formation (say, for a cruise photo) occupies a lot of
space...they wouldn't even be as closed up then as the ships seem to have
been for Shot BAKER in the famous photo:http://www.de220.com/Strange%20Stuff...ads/Baker8.jpg

In reality, with either a CSG or ESG, you'll have ships very far apart. Any
one nuclear weapon may be bad news for one or two ships, a few more won't
like it, and the rest will be relatively unscathed. Unless, as you say, the
enemy uses some rather stupendous weapons.

The real problem is not that one or two nuclear weapons (let's say they are
medium-size fission weapons) is going to wreck the entire fleet, but that
your high-value assets may be mission-killed. A 50 kT airburst 3-4 km from
your CVN is not going to be conducive to continued flights ops in the near
or medium future.

AHS



The noo-kyoo-lar genius has spoken!








- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote in message
ups.com...
[ snip ]

The noo-kyoo-lar genius has spoken!

No, none of this requires anything other than simple comprehension of
elementary math. There have been enough books published about nuclear
weapons effects that an average kid in high school could work out most of
the arithmetic.

It may seem incomprehensible to you, however.

AHS